On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.orgwrote:
I any case, may I suggest a Bar BOF in Prague? Plotting revolutions in
coffeehouses is a very old tradition.
I am told that http://www.cafeslavia.cz/ was a popular hangout for Czech
revolutionaries.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:22, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Richard L. Barnes wrote:
As an example, consider a system we built for the IETF meeting
network a few years ago. The server queried a series of
tables inside of NetDisco to map an IP address to the WiFi
First I like the idea of Hawaii because flights and hotels can be
inexpensive even from Europe (although Hilo might be cheaper and just as
easy to get to as Honolulu). However I still think we need to account for
actual participation in the equation to decide which places to hold
meetings.
Throwing a draft at the IETF without a lot of supporting work rarely gets
anywhere, but some people find it hard to figure out just what supporting
work is actually effective and to execute on it. It's the non-procedural
parts of the IETF process that confound people, and lead to various end
runs.
Once upon a time Bob Braden would alternate WG sessions, one open and then
one only for people who were actually contributing.
On Jul 31, 2010 7:00 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote:
The implication that there needs to be a session,
I believe I agree with Brian. It sounds like you are hoping for clear
deterministic procedures, but imho the IETF should avoid too much
deterministic procedure. We shouldn't say Mr. Chairman, you
evaluated consensus within the last 10 minutes, therefore your new
request is disallowed!.
On 04/20/2007 08:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1:
The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
group process and staffing, in conformance with the
On 04/11/2007 05:22 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the
IETF
Please don't use free standards this way. The IETF produces free
standards. Some of those standards have IPR licenses that you don't
like.
On 03/30/2007 13:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader
grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower
one if
On 03/29/2007 21:23 PM, Yao Jiankang wrote:
Maybe, when we register the IETF meeting, we not only register the
English name but also the Native character name. further, IETF may
print both the English name and the Native character name on the
Name Tag. :)
+1
Native language biggest on the
Thomas, I agree with everything you say below except that some of what
you say may, in fact, be the justifications we are looking for. I
didn't say examples, I said explanations. See below ...
On 11/22/2006 09:06 AM, Thomas Narten allegedly wrote:
Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
On 11/09/2006 18:43 PM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
Scott == Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do
Scott protocols. The IETF needs to consider how proposed
Scott architectures fit in with all the other requirements
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please
resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Summary statement: This draft is
Excerpts from Sam Hartman on Thu, Nov 02, 2006 02:30:43PM -0500:
To propose concrete action, I think the IETF should draft a liaison
statement for action to the ITU asking for them to comment on whether
they see any current conflicts and on whether there are parts of this
work they would be
Excerpts from Dolly, Martin C, NPE on Mon, Nov 06, 2006 01:22:26PM -0600:
1) Should this work be done within the IETF?
Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g.,
architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol
extension/definition) should be done in the IETF.
Excerpts from Sam Hartman on Wed, Nov 01, 2006 04:34:20PM -0500:
[I could not find the ITU's liaison to the IETF. Scott, if such
exists, I'd appreciate you forwarding this to them.]
The ITU-T's liaison from SG13 to the IETF is Hui-Lan Lu. CCed.
FYI SG13 is about to send something to the IETF
On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote:
Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend:
they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees.
The weekend before the IETF? Hey, that's an advantage!
___
Ietf mailing list
On 07/17/2006 15:46 PM, Andy Bierman allegedly wrote:
- I didn't find a terminal room, but instead a giant 'break room'
for ad-hoc meetings and food breaks. This was wonderful, and
about time! 802.11 has thankfully made the terminal room obsolete.
I want this format every time.
Can you normalize like this? 1523 drafts have authors from North
America, and so on. If a draft has three authors from North America
and two from Europe, is the draft counted five times or two times?
swb
On 07/15/2006 00:18 AM, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
From: Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
Once upon a time,
the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in
random
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure what those
statistics referred to.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 06/25/2006 15:55 PM, Stephen Sprunk allegedly wrote:
the IETF is supposedly about
running code, and complex equations that the average programmer cannot
understand without digging up a college math book are unimplementable in
the real world. Pseudocode is far, far more valuable than pretty
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creating one of these archives is easy, just view the HTML page and
click 'save as archive'.
My copy of firefox doesn't seem to have that feature.
Maybe you need to include the archive extension: http://maf.mozdev.org.
When I do I get three
On 06/07/2006 09:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer allegedly wrote:
These rules are perfectly reasonable (even if they would cost me my
acknowledgment in draft-ietf-ltru-matching) but:
1) They do not seem to be written somewhere. I cannot find them in the
RFCs talking about RFCs (meta-RFCs?
On 05/30/2006 12:17 PM, Yaakov Stein allegedly wrote:
I also don't imagine that there are that many co-participants
of SG4 and IETF.
Well, we have at least one SG4 rapporteur who is pretty active.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 05/17/2006 12:15 PM, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
This is a community. It extends beyond the boundaries of the IETF and
the IETF is not the center' of that community.
Is there a center? Is there a centroid? If so, what/where?
___
Ietf mailing
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're
location-independent
Huh? Did you mean identifiers are a lot easier to deal with
if they're location-independent?
I really was talking about
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 11:16:33AM -0500, Steve Silverman allegedly
wrote:
In Paris, we switched to a late dinner which was necessary in Paris
but we did this in Dallas. Was this a general decision that I
missed? I prefer dinner from 6 - 8 and a night session where the
local customs support
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 04:18:42PM +0100, Tim Chown allegedly wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:38:03AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think the analogy holds, for a number of reasons. (As a matter
of interest, there were about 6 participants out of 350 with addresses
in Europe at
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 05:00:07AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
There are two strategies that make more sense and have more
chance of success. One is precisely what 4084 attempted to do:
lay out categories and boundaries that, if adopted, make better
information available to
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm
generally used
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 05:00:14PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly
wrote:
I would like to see a two tier scheme for standards (i.e. eliminate
the illogical and misleading status 'DRAFT') but on the
understanding that standards require periodic review. By periodic I
mean that there should
Last night the nice desk lady said go ahead and agree to pay for
access, and that at checkout the charges will be disappeared.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 01/22/2006 01:19 AM, Elwyn Davies allegedly wrote:
- EGP Modifications
FGP, the follow-on gateway protocol.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
chance of getting an RFC.
Why not?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 01/09/2006 10:41 AM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
Are you looking for normative figures? If so, can you point to an
example where you think they are necessary? (I'd like to avoid a
discussion of packet diagrams for the moment if that's OK)
Normative figures perhaps. Normative equations
On 01/09/2006 14:02 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I
think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams,
especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that
they have understood something when, in fact,
On 01/05/2006 11:28 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Even those of us who are strongly supportive of ASCII as our
primary base format and those who believe that the effort needed
to simplify illustrations and diagrams sufficiently that they
can be accurately represented in ASCII artwork is
The reason we have the deadline is to protect the Secretariat from
having to be heroes. However, best would be if the need for such
protection didn't arise.
Instead of assuming that things to be discussed in the meetings will
be written just before the meeting, and creating complexity and
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 10:07:27AM -0500, Gray, Eric allegedly wrote:
Making your - admittedly optimistic - assumption and following
it to a conclusion leads me to suspect that many (possibly most) WG
meetings would likely be subject to last-minute cancellation if all
remaining issues are
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 08:15:45AM -0800, Dondeti, Lakshminath allegedly
wrote:
Perhaps that's one way to prove that the bar is high/low. Another
way is to ask around with this in mind and see if we all run into
old rumors of what has been tried and with what results :-).
It would be an
On 11/10/2005 07:29 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
I basically like this schedule. The idea of having the evening free for
a leisurely dinner, off-agenda work, or both is, and remains, very
attractive.
I like the idea of being done with sessions and having time for a
leisurely dinner
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 08:48:23AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment
on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary
presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not
driven by the IETF Chair, might well not
OK, this is getting silly. Have you ever been to an IETF meeting?
You should understand the IETF culture before presuming to advise
governments. The IETF is not a puppet of any government, and even if
it were, that has nothing to do with RFC3683.
The Last Call was reissued precisely to support
On 10/17/2005 13:12 PM, Eduardo Mendez allegedly wrote:
Mr. Scott,
IANAL. But I know when you hurt someone with others, all have to pay.
I'm done.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 01:54:10PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
It certainly makes sense to reword it for a pattern of difficulty or
exclusion.
and the method of making objective, verifiable assessments that this
pattern exists will be...?
Don't even try. Choose people who listen
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 03:17:56PM -0400, Michael StJohns allegedly
wrote:
At 02:43 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
Jabber room dedicated for the specific discussion.
im systems do not have threading, nor is it clear how threading
could/should be done. --
E.g. Jabber
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 05:15:05PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
either or both of
1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute
mediator.
Good idea. These disputes take a lot of care and interested
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to
signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is
being defined as seeding the area. Since
On 09/15/2005 17:09 PM, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
At 1:50 PM -0700 9/15/05, Michael Thomas wrote:
Which is pretty much the elephant in the room, I'd say. How
much of the net traffic these days is, essentially, not in
any way standardized, and in fact probably considers ietf
old and in the
I would appreciate not hearing the same arguments again and again.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 08/09/2005 09:37 AM, DENG, HUI -HCHBJ allegedly wrote:
Dear all
We two people lost our laptop right inside the WG meeting room
during the break time of the 63rd IEF meeting.
We are wondering whether we could accuse the La De Congress
for their security guard and get some compensation?
On 08/06/2005 19:07 PM, Brian Rosen allegedly wrote:
If two groups are arguing with one another, and one has implemented code and
the other has not, I think we would give great weight to the running code.
Weight yes, but great weight? Many things have been implemented
that only work in
On 08/03/2005 13:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
I haven't heard *any* negative comments so far. We will attempt
a systematic survey to be sure.
Sorry to disappoint you :-)
It's absolutely the right thing to do in Paris where restaurants
aren't open until 7:30, but I don't like going
On 08/03/2005 15:36 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
PS: the key point is restaurants serve after 8pm... This can
be an issue in some places in winter.
Of course, we could make that -- which really should be “restaurants
serve after 9PM” to allow for meetings running over or the need
This conjecture was disturbing, but calling it a feature was even more
disturbing. After a bit of pondering, and wondering what different
groups in the IETF might mean by complex, my first thought was that
the IETF has never, ever solved one. For example, we do QoS in small
pieces that don't fit
Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good
thing. Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits
on the NomCom are a good thing.
It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to
constrict them. The NomCom is pivotal in IETF governance and
On 08/01/2005 11:24 AM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
Scott,
I dunno. I thought that some of the discussion has been about
circulation of folks in leadership positions. Some feel its good,
some feel its bad. Its not strictly term-limits as in goverment
posts, as quite many former IAB
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 05:27:45PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
My expectation is that we'll stick to the pattern of two N American
meetings plus one in another region - but meeting planning is an art,
not a science.
I like the deterministic formula based on the number of drafts
On 07/12/2005 11:48 AM, Steve Silverman allegedly wrote:
I registered for the social event in Paris, paid for it, and then
received several emails asking
for my credit card info from Kim Wallet, purportedly from
france-connection. Is this legitimate or a phishing expedition?
No I haven't
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 03:42:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Phill,
Just picking out the nub of your message:
There is however one area that should be made very explicit as a non
issue for DISCUSS, failure to employ a specific technology platform.
I have been concerned on a
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
Limiting the number
On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with the decision, or c)
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 12:30:44PM -0700, Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts allegedly wrote:
Steve,
Thank you for your thoughts. I am not sure about the next step, but I can
clarify some of the points that were unclear.
British Telecom submitted it to the ITU SG12 in January and we had
unanimous
On 5/19/2005 11:20, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
Thomas,
1) You can't hurry the above, e.g., by imposing artificial deadlines,
or by saying no objections during LC, therefor ready to go. You
have to have the reviews, and you have to iterate.
The IETF is supposed to produce a product
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting',
what the toy shows after about a day is:
prefer nroff: 8
prefer xml: 37
neither: 9
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
On 4/6/2005 11:20, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
Using an XML-specific editor basically substitutes manually
typing tags by a search for a pointing device, selection from a menu,
etc. (avoiding typos while entering long tags, but interrupting the
mental flow of writing content to search for
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 11:14:33AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
While I've suggested scrapping the terminals in the terminal
room on and off for years, I'd be reluctant to give up on the
printers. Perhaps it is a sign of advancing age, but, when a
document gets above some length or
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 11:54:10AM -0600, Christopher A Bongaarts allegedly wrote:
In the immortal words of lafur Gumundsson:
The good news:
Last December Minneapolis started a Light Rail Service between
downtown and Mall of America with a stop at the airport.
The ride costs $1.25 each way
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should
include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed,
an explanation of how the decision or action violates the BCPs or
violates -
On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship
applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text
seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan
Swift's satirical look at lawyers in
On 1/14/2005 19:05, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Proposed change: Get rid of unanimous (both times), replacing
it with consensus and appropriate editorial smoothing.
wfm
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 02:11:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
To start, I must admit I have trouble equating an individual or
community's disagreement with a decision to a DOS attack, though I do
know how disconcerting and distracting an insistent complaint can be.
I just don't see
On 1/12/2005 04:51, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
in-house should be explicitly justified by the IAOC
and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these
decisions and staffing
On 1/12/2005 07:44, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
--On onsdag, januar 12, 2005 07:29:27 -0500 Scott W Brim
sbrim@cisco.com wrote:
On 1/12/2005 04:51, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform
On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote:
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike.
So that is:
t
The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering
reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement
shall
), but the IAOC can also establish rules
for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its
the only way they can get people to come to do something for example.
OK
At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote:
OK, I have
On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
I think this line of thought has died down without any great
disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence:
The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
exceptional reimbursement of
Dave Crocker wrote:
It occurs to me that a Last Call for an independent submission has an added
requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports adoption of the
work. We take a working group as a demonstration of community support.
(However we used to pressure for explicit
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
- There is nothing clear about whether the IAOC chair is peer,
superior or subordinate to the IAB chair or the IETF chair (or, for
that matter, the ISOC President).
I don't think the last point should be addressed. This document lays
out the specific mechanisms
The other Scott's approach looks like it's clearly the most reasonable,
and follows a model we have used before. No reimbursement for
performance of services; no reimbursement for meetings that are
associated with IETF; reimbursement for travel to special (not
IETF-associated) meetings where
Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 13:08:
We can require that the IAOC establish rules for dealing with
conflicts of interest, and if a member does not follow them (or
perhaps does so too
frequently) they can be recalled; if that fails, particular decisions
can
Margaret Wasserman on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 13:49:
I agree with Stephen and others. We could probably just add
something in the BCP saying that the IAOC should define and publish
an appropriate conflict of interest policy and leave it up to them.
Margaret
Can you think of any
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 09:19:12PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote:
See: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=751
The text suggested by Scott would mean to change:
Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal
and financial home of the IASA to
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 11:47:10AM -0500, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Harald, while I agree in principle, I would suggest that some of
the comments Eric, Bill, and others have pointed out call for
the beginnings of an evaluation of your experiment. I further
suggest that evaluation is
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote:
The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be
used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding
sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the
surplus will be
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 07:00:32AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote:
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure about this
wording:
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy the
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 06:15:03PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
At IETF60, the Sheraton hotels charged me both for the deposit of one
day, and for all days I stayed there.
Now at IETF61, I noticed that the Hilton has also charged me for the
deposit (one day), but did not take that
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 04:38:37PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
It didn't. For an effort always expected to take at least 15 years,
we are doing OK.
It is always good to learn from history, of course.
That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15
years,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 09:27:55PM +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote:
At 17:52 18/11/2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
That's funny. I recall that when we started we expected it to *last* 15
years, or less, during which time we would come up with a truly new
routing addressing architecture
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 01:23:19PM -0700, Stephane Maes allegedly wrote:
Carsten,
You may be confusing my concern. It is not an issue of voting or having no
voice in reaching consensus. It is an issue that if people who intended or
needed to participate FTF are prevented to do so by late
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 12:00:09PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*IPv6 only exists because of a previous round of FUD about IPv4 address
exhaustion* - one spread by the proponents of yet another protocol
that was going to replace
Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
little more nuanced, for example you don't have to disclose until it
looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed
towards standards track, but generally I think what you describe is how
things work now.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 08:56:15PM +0300, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
little more nuanced, for example you don't have to disclose until it
looks like your idea is going
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 09:59:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
On 6-okt-04, at 6:12, Scott W Brim wrote:
However, there appears to be rough consensus emerging that an IPR
assertion is acceptable if any of the following are true:
- a license is explicitly not required
As Ted says, the IETF should stay out of passing judgment on the
validity of claims and/or fighting patents. It's really way outside of
our charter. Anyone can set up a separate organization to do that if
he/she wants.
However, this case is just the worst of many. It is abundantly clear
that
I agree completely with Bob. I want to point out one issue where
vigilance will be important:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 12:39:53PM -0700, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote:
Housing the IETF administrative activity in ISOC seems to me to be a
much simpler solution to our administrative problems and will
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 01:57:50PM +0200, Erik Huizer allegedly wrote:
Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on non-technical
issues that the IETF was expecting to handle.
Erik, that was not my intention. What I want to avoid is the feeling
that the friendliness of who we deal with,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 01:19:15PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
I would really dispute that. There are layers of complexity in
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
